Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Cybercrime Dipped During Holiday Shopping Season
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Kelly Jackson Higgins
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
1/9/2015 | 3:33:25 PM
Re: Suspect numbers
@boconnor, you are spot on that we don't know everything yet. IBM even noted (see below, from the article) that we don't know the whole picture yet: 

And some retailers may not yet know they've been infiltrated with malware, whether it was planted during the holiday shopping season or afterward. "A lot of attacks during the holiday last year were uncovered later," Strand says
boconnor@henryscheinvet.com
[email protected],
User Rank: Apprentice
1/9/2015 | 3:28:52 PM
Suspect numbers
Nice article, but I have two problems with it.  First is, and no offense to IBM - a giant in the tech industry, but I do not see IBM as a company I rely on for IT security or IT security information.  Secondly I feel this article may have been written about 4 months too early.  I think no one in IT Security is confident the security incidents from the holidays have been fully reported yet, or will be for months.
RyanSepe
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
1/6/2015 | 3:38:44 PM
Patching Pushed Back
That's interesting. It never even crossed my mind that that pushing back of patches due to the holiday season would be a security hole but not its glaringly obvious. But I do think that pushing back patches, though widely practiced, is unnecessary. Change management from planning to implementation in a test environment should drastically cut down on any delays the organization could incur. Not applying necessary patches in the idea that you are saving functionality is just negligent. Its poor planning.
Kelly Jackson Higgins
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
1/5/2015 | 4:48:03 PM
Re: Unexpected
I had to think twice when I saw manufacturing, too. My gut is maybe it's because they have skeletal staff during the holidays as well.
Sara Peters
Sara Peters,
User Rank: Author
1/5/2015 | 4:30:59 PM
Re: Unexpected
Thanks Kelly! Good to know. It's also weird to me that in 2013-14 manufacturing was hit hard during the holiday season. Shows what I know.
Kelly Jackson Higgins
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
1/5/2015 | 4:26:01 PM
Re: Unexpected
The retail sample for the holiday season was indeed relatively small, but the overall sample across industries was pretty substantial given IBM's client base. They also used data from the Privacy Clearinghouse on breaches that were reported. 
Sara Peters
Sara Peters,
User Rank: Author
1/5/2015 | 4:23:34 PM
Unexpected
Well this certainly seems to conflict with the common beliefs. I wonder if the sample size is big enough...


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Creating an Effective Incident Response Plan
Security teams are realizing their organizations will experience a cyber incident at some point. An effective incident response plan that takes into account their specific requirements and has been tested is critical. This issue of Tech Insights also includes: -a look at the newly signed cyber-incident law, -how organizations can apply behavioral psychology to incident response, -and an overview of the Open Cybersecurity Schema Framework.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-45909
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-26
drachtio-server 0.8.18 has a heap-based buffer over-read via a long Request-URI in an INVITE request.
CVE-2022-45907
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-26
In PyTorch before trunk/89695, torch.jit.annotations.parse_type_line can cause arbitrary code execution because eval is used unsafely.
CVE-2022-45908
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-26
In PaddlePaddle before 2.4, paddle.audio.functional.get_window is vulnerable to code injection because it calls eval on a user-supplied winstr. This may lead to arbitrary code execution.
CVE-2022-44843
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-25
TOTOlink A7100RU V7.4cu.2313_B20191024 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the port parameter in the setting/setOpenVpnClientCfg function.
CVE-2022-44844
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-25
TOTOlink A7100RU V7.4cu.2313_B20191024 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the pass parameter in the setting/setOpenVpnCfg function.